Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Post any issues in the thread below or reach out directly to support!
View thread Contact supportThanks, the rifle was shipped from TN, so the "NPD" stamp is a mystery. I have heard of Sam Dayton, and seen some of his work on a rear-lugged match M1 Garand with a heavy profile stainless steel barrel. I actually tried to contact Mr. Dayton with a phone number that I was given back in 2017 or 2018 to see if he wanted to build my Navy M14 sniper replica but the number I got was wrong/disconnected. So I had Isaac build it.Random Guy, the "NPD" might be Norfolk (Virginia) Police Department. If it is, there's a good chance it was built by Sammy Dayton out of the Newport News - General Dynamics Shipyard. He built a number of the Virginia Rifle Team National Match M14s.
I can't say enough good things about Leupold's customer service. I had a 1989 dated M3A Ultra on my M24R that had small dust or sand specs in the rear ocular, and the adjustments hardly worked. In 2017 I sent to them under their warranty/inspection program. Came back with new glass and internals, perfect working order, and at no charge (other than what it cost me to ship it to Oregon). Check out the 'before and after' adjustment range. For an old military scope that was 28 years old and had likely been around the world a few times, that is just awesome customer service...but I digress.The M3A was/is a very good optic overall, in all the years of shooting them I only saw a handful ever fail in any way.....I did see a few that the elevation turret became problematic making it very hard or in one case impossible to rotate.
"Mac" builds good M1s and M14s. I first met him at Dam Neck in 1999 when he worked out of the Navy Team van during the LANTFLEET, All-Navy, Interservice, and Camp Perry matches.I have heard of Sam Dayton, and seen some of his work on a rear-lugged match M1 Garand with a heavy profile stainless steel barrel. I actually tried to contact Mr. Dayton with a phone number that I was given back in 2017 or 2018 to see if he wanted to build my Navy M14 sniper replica but the number I got was wrong/disconnected. So I had Isaac build it.
Anyhow, I wish you had an old pic of the 10th SFG M25s, as hardly any exist. If you run across one, please post it on this thread, thanks.
Yes indeed, that 1994 proposal motivated me to build a replica of the "late" - or final version - of the M25 sniper rifle that was built by 10th SFG back then. To the best of my knowledge, those are the only pictures of M25s with black M3A McMillan stocks that I am aware of. It took a couple of years and a lot of effort, but here it is. Just mounted scope last night, but have not tested it yet...These snippets in particular are from a 1st SFG 1994 proposal for the development of a SOTIC Lv. II at Ft. Lewis WA. Any how I figure some folks might be interested, particularly in some of the M25 stuff as the 10th SFG M25 program at Ft. Devens is heavily reference and there are some interesting pics. I assume some of this stuff hasn't seen the light of day in 20-25 years.
....Resurrecting this old thread with my most recent replica of the mysterious M25 rifles seen in that 1994 Sniper Locker Proposal:
It was not a ‘Program of Record’ with a formal Program Manager, all of which makes their history pretty obscure.
That said, it is likely only a small handful of these ‘late’ M25s were made with the black M3A stock, as Big Army had reportedly conducted a formal investigation during the mid-90s, and came down hard on the 10th SFG. The outcome of that investigation was Army leadership disallowing 10th SFG and other Special Forces units from manufacturing, and/or permanently modifying a combat rifle. This is not permitted under US Army regulations, as all combat weapons reportedly must be "returned to their as-procured configuration within 24 hours following any field modifications." (Or something to that effect). Likewise, 10th SFG was also disallowed from hand-loading combat ammunition, which is also forbidden under Army policy. So, that investigation ended the M25 program at Ft. Devens.
From my research, me thinks 10th SFG actually never bothered completing or even submitting paperwork to manufacture or modify combat weapons. No funding was allocated either, so no NSN was developed. Mitch Mateiko was local and friends with 10th SFG, and he reportedly gave the 200 or more BPT stock liners to them - at no charge. Those parts lacked NSNs too…10th Group failed to keep up with paperwork
Nice, I recall that you were a fan of his on an older thread he posted on the history of the M24, M24A1 and M24A2, etc.Mike and I are brothers of different mothers, both having been on the same ODA and B Team. He went from ODA to ODB kicking and screaming but I think eventually came around to doing more for SF and the Army than had he stayed.
Thanks for reminding of TACOM's role as the third DoD entity that can approve modifications to a combat weapon. Digressing, but I will note to the best of my knowledge, the only significant US Army modifications approved for the M14 platform during the 21st century was TACOM approving several thousand "condition A" M14s to be pulled out of Anniston, and converted to the M14 EBR-RI platform from 2009-2012. Aside from removing the op rod guide to allow the use of the SAGE EBR chassis op rod guide, the only other 'real' modification that they allowed was reaming the USGI flash hiders to NM spec and re-installing it afterwards. Based on my understanding, that was really the only two modifications allowed. A couple of guys at RIA made all of those rifles. Here's a pretty good article on the EBR-RI and TACOM's role:TAACOM has not approved a National Match rifle or pistol weapon or ammunition item since 1968 -- but M14NM, M21, and M1911A1 NM are in the books until rescinded.
...here's the M14 EBR-RI in the RIA museum:We met Doug Carlstrom inside a simple reinforced structure reminiscent of the Cold War. It's subtly located in a corner of the 946-acre island within the historic gates of Rock Island Arsenal. A career U.S. Army veteran with experience brought back from the Vietnam War, Carlstrom has witnessed the military trials of nearly all modern infantry small arms spanning the adoption of the M9 and M11 pistols to more recent variants of the M16. In 2011 Carlstrom and his five-man team were continuing their service as civilian contractors to TACOM, leading the development, testing and issue of the M14 EBR-RI.
On the 5th day of May 2011, this team built the 5,000th rifle, one of only two ever inducted into the Rock Island Arsenal Museum the same day it was built (the other being a M1903 Springfield serial number 1).
Honestly, the build process for the XM25/M25 was quite a bit more involved that the NM M14 or M21 build process. If you will forgive me re some verbosity, I'll use my replica to explain why Crane engineers who went to Fort Devens in 1991 and 1992 decided there was some concerns about both "producibility" and the use of "propriety parts" re the XM25 rifles. (Those were words used in their evaluation/report)The M25 was a perfect example of Big Army National Match and sniper-approved modifications and ammo (the difference and similarity being the McMillan stock).
On the Crane built PSSR rifles circa 1990, they would weld on a rear lug and thread it for the torque screw. Below pic is a factory rear-lugged commercial SAI Supermatch, but we did the same set-up for my PSSR replica.The Marines insisted that a separate heavy rear lug was required, while Crane also had a separate forward receiver lug (like their 700s) with an Allen bolt that allowed for an additional bedding tension point.